Registered pharmacy inspection report      Page 1 of 9
    Registered pharmacy inspection report
     Pharmacy Name:R.H. Wilson (Chemists) Ltd., 75 Whalley New Road, 
     Bastwell, BLACKBURN, Lancashire, BB1 6JY
     Pharmacy reference: 1033121
     Type of pharmacy: Community
     Date of inspection: 10/03/2020
     Pharmacy context
     This is a community pharmacy on a parade of shops in the town of Blackburn, Lancashire. It dispenses 
     both NHS and private prescriptions and sells a range of over-the-counter medicines. The pharmacy 
     team offers advice to people about minor illnesses and long-term conditions through its NHS services. It 
     supplies some medicines in multi-compartment compliance packs to people living in their own homes. 
     And it provides a home delivery service. 
     Overall inspection outcome
     aStandards met
     Required Action: None
     Follow this link to find out what the inspections possible outcomes mean
          Summary of notable practice for each principle
                                                    Principle         Exception standard         Notable 
            Principle                                                                                              Why
                                                    finding           reference                  practice
                                                    Standards 
            1. Governance                                             N/A                        N/A               N/A
                                                    met
                                                    Standards 
            2. Staff                                                  N/A                        N/A               N/A
                                                    met
                                                    Standards 
            3. Premises                                               N/A                        N/A               N/A
                                                    met
            4. Services, including medicines        Standards 
                                                                      N/A                        N/A               N/A
            management                              met
                                                    Standards 
            5. Equipment and facilities                               N/A                        N/A               N/A
                                                    met
        Registered pharmacy inspection report                                                                   Page 2 of 9
     Principle 1 - Governance aStandards met
     Summary findings
     The pharmacy identifies and manages the risks associated with the services it provides to people. And it 
     has a set of written procedures for the team members to follow. The pharmacy keeps most of the 
     records it must have by law. And it keeps people's private information secure. The team members know 
     when to raise a concern to safeguard the welfare of vulnerable adults and children. The team members 
     openly discuss mistakes that they make when dispensing. And they make some changes to their ways of 
     working to reduce the risk of mistakes happening again. 
     Inspector's evidence
     The pharmacy had an open plan retail area and dispensary. The pharmacy counter acted as a barrier 
     between the retail area and the dispensary to prevent any unauthorised access. The pharmacist used a 
     bench close to the pharmacy counter. This allowed him to oversee sales of pharmacy medicines. 
      
     The pharmacy had a set of written standard operating procedures (SOPs). They were last reviewed in 
     2018. There were SOPs for various process such as dispensing and handling controlled drugs (CDs). 
     There wasn’t an index available. So, it was difficult to locate a specific SOP. The pharmacy defined the 
     roles of the pharmacy team members in each procedure. Which made clear the roles and 
     responsibilities within the team. The team members had read and signed each SOP that was relevant to 
     their role. But some team members had not revisited the SOPs since 2012 or 2013. 
      
     The pharmacist highlighted near miss errors made by the team when dispensing. The pharmacy had a 
     paper near miss log onto which the team members could record the details of the near miss errors. 
     Including the date and time of the near miss error, the type of near miss error and the reasons why it 
     might have happened. But the team members hadn’t used the log for around four months. The team 
     members explained they didn’t benefit from recording the details of near miss errors onto the log, and 
     instead preferred to talk about them as soon as the pharmacist brought them to their attention. They 
     said the most common reason for near miss errors was rushing or a lack of concentration. To improve, 
     the team members explained they often tried to slow down the dispensing process when the pharmacy 
     was busy. And they gave more realistic waiting times to people who wanted to wait in the pharmacy 
     while their prescriptions were being dispensed. The most common type of near miss involved medicines 
     that were available in different forms. Such as ramipril tablets and capsules. The team members 
     discussed how they could reduce the frequency of similar errors happening. They decided to make sure 
     the different forms were kept tidily on the dispensary shelves and segregated. The team members told 
     the pharmacist immediately if they were made aware of any dispensing errors that had been handed 
     out to people. The pharmacist explained he hadn’t been made aware of a dispensing error for several 
     years. And the pharmacy did not keep historic records of any dispensing errors.  
      
     The pharmacy displayed the correct responsible pharmacist notice. And it was easy to see from the 
     retail area. The team members explained their roles and responsibilities. And they were seen working 
     within the scope of their role throughout the inspection. The pharmacist was absent from the pharmacy 
     each day between 1pm and 2pm. The team members accurately described the tasks they could and 
     couldn’t do in the absence of a responsible pharmacist. For example, they explained how they could 
     only hand out dispensed medicines or sell any pharmacy medicines under the supervision of a 
     responsible pharmacist. Each team member had the contact telephone number of the pharmacist. So, 
    Registered pharmacy inspection report       Page 3 of 9
     they could contact him if they had a question or a query. 
      
     The pharmacy had a formal complaints procedure in place. And it was available for people to see via a 
     poster in the retail area. The pharmacy collected feedback through an annual patient satisfaction 
     survey. The team members discussed the findings of the survey with each other. The findings were 
     generally positive. But the team couldn’t provide any examples of any improvement measures following 
     the feedback. 
      
     The pharmacy had up-to-date professional indemnity insurance. The pharmacy had a responsible 
     pharmacist record. But the pharmacist did not always record the time his responsible pharmacist duties 
     ended. This was not in line with requirements and the importance of keeping complete records was 
     discussed. The pharmacy kept complete records of private prescriptions. The pharmacy kept CD 
     registers. But the headers on each page were not completed correctly on several pages of the registers. 
     The pharmacy team checked the running balances against physical stock when a CD was handed out or 
     new stock had arrived. CDs that were used infrequently were not balance checked regularly. So, the 
     team may find it difficult to resolve a discrepancy. A physical balance check of three randomly selected 
     CDs matched the balance in the register. The pharmacy kept complete records of CDs returned by 
     people to the pharmacy.  
      
     The team members were aware of the need to keep people's personal information confidential. They 
     were seen moving to the back of the dispensary to take telephone calls about people’s medicines or 
     health conditions. This was to avoid people in the retail area from overhearing the conversations. There 
     was a privacy notice in the retail area which outlined how the pharmacy handled people’s personal 
     information. The team held records containing personal identifiable information in areas of the 
     pharmacy that only team members could access. Confidential waste was placed into a separate bin to 
     avoid a mix up with general waste. The confidential waste was periodically destroyed using a shredder. 
      
     The responsible pharmacist had completed training on safeguarding vulnerable adults and children via 
     the Centre for Pharmacy Postgraduate Education (CPPE). And when asked about safeguarding, the team 
     members gave several examples of the symptoms that would raise their concerns in both children and 
     vulnerable adults. They explained how they would discuss their concerns with the pharmacist at the 
     earliest opportunity. The pharmacy had some basic written guidance kept in the dispensary, on how to 
     manage or report a concern and the contact details of the local support teams. 
    Registered pharmacy inspection report       Page 4 of 9